Burn patients' pain and anxiety experiences.

The purpose of this study was to examine burn patients' pain and anxiety experiences during resting conditions and procedures. The relationship of contextual factors and interventions to pain and anxiety were also explored. Procedural pain was significantly higher than resting pain (P = .02); however, there were no significant differences in anxiety between resting conditions and procedures (P = .16). There was a significant difference between burn patients' acceptable level of pain, resting pain, and procedural pain (P = .01). Resting pain was significantly lower than patients' acceptable level of pain (P = < .01). Procedural pain was slightly lower than patients' acceptable level of pain, but these results were not statistically significant (P = .37). Percent of total body surface burned was associated with increased procedural anxiety (P = .022). Family presence correlated with decreased procedural pain (P = .011) and midazolam use (P = .047). Prior experience with the procedure was associated with increased morphine(P = .003) and midazolam use (P = .029). These findings support the multifactorial nature of burn pain and anxiety and provide guidance for practice.

An integrative review and meta-analysis of therapeutic touch research.

OBJECTIVE: To perform an integrative research review and meta-analysis of therapeutic touch research. DATA SOURCES: Bibliography maintained by the Nurse Healers-Professional Associates International; MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Psylit databases; dissertations and master's theses. STUDY SELECTION: Thirty-eight research articles were included in the analysis. All dissertations and research articles were analyzed. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on 32 substantive characteristics of the sample, the therapeutic touch procedure, and the article/dissertation were extracted following Moody's method for an integrative research review. The meta-analysis used studies that reported means and standard deviations of the treatment and control groups. DATA SYNTHESIS: The research questions were as follows: (1) What are the substantive characteristics of the sample, the therapeutic touch practice, and the article/dissertation in research studies from 1975 to 1997? (2) What does the research demonstrate regarding the efficacy of therapeutic touch as an intervention? (3) Based on the results of the review and meta-analysis, what are the gaps, trends, and outcomes of the therapeutic touch research studies? CONCLUSIONS: The review demonstrated that there are many approaches to therapeutic touch research, samples are described incompletely, and the therapeutic touch practices vary in the studies. Most of the studies supported hypotheses regarding the efficacy of therapeutic touch, though a number had mixed or negative results. A meta-analysis was performed on 13 studies. The average effect size in these studies was .39, which is described as moderate. Gaps, trends, and outcomes were identified and discussed.